Absolutely incorrect:

“Why? Because any citizen–white, black, yellow, male, female, gay, straight, upper or middle or lower class–who deigns to give lip to a police officer during a neighborhood confrontation or traffic stop stands a good chance of being busted. And this is something in police culture nationally–and probably all around the world (I’ve observed Frenchmen giving lip to Paris flics and gendarmes, also with bad results for the civilians)–that begs for change.

And so, before the dreaded thought-reform charlatans start coming out of the woodwork in order to prescribe yet more “sensitivity training” for Cambridge’s finest, everyone should take a step back and ask why so many citizens–including Professor Gates, who, it is conceded, did not assault Officer Crowley–end up being arrested for uttering mere words. Because, whether the words were as perfunctory and non-objectionable as Gates’ claim that he asked for Crowley’s name and badge number, or as heated as Crowley’s claim that Gates let loose a stream of loud and offensive insults, they were, well, just words. Put more simply, why do we as a society so often ignore traditional notions of First Amendment freedom to speak one’s own notion of truth to power when one party to the confrontation is wearing a uniform, a badge and a gun?”

Silverglate doesn’t know what he’s talking about, as he shows when he continues to bloviate about Supreme Court case law.

“Today, the law recognizes only four exceptions to the First Amendment’s protection for free speech: (1) speech posing the “clear and present danger” of imminent violence or lawless action posited by Holmes, (2) disclosures threatening “national security,” (3) “obscenity” and (4) so-called “fighting words” that would provoke a reasonable person to an imminent, violent response.

Supporters of Sgt. Crowley’s power and right to arrest Professor Gates–assuming the worst version of what Gates spewed at the officer–rely on the “fighting words” doctrine. But there is a problem with such reliance: The Supreme Court’s affirming of a conviction for disturbing the peace based upon “fighting words” directed to a police officer has never been replicated since the original 1942 fighting words doctrine was announced in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.”

First, let’s be clear on who Silverglate is. He’s a Boston based lawyer, a liberal “civil liberties” lawyer. He’s a card carrying member of the anti-cop ACLU, and ….No wait for it….. the Cambridge ACLU. He authored “How the Feds Target the Innocent”, a good read of how to get a terrorist off the hook. Silverglate is no doubt shopping to represent Mr. Gates who has been considering legal action over his arrest. Here’s the ACLU’s non-surprising take on the Gates arrest.

So color his opinion as such.

But he’s still wrong.

Again, I’m a former career LEO, and a police officer – even on the private property of an individual – has the authority and the right to arrest a person – even the owner – for disorderly conduct. That authority is vested in the law of every jurisdiction in America and is practiced hundreds a time a day.

It’s been challenged, but during my entire career the arrest we made was upheld in court. In spite of three challenges by the ACLU. For example.

“Failure to follow a lawful order is just that. There has been a shooting. You want to cross the tape for what ever reason. I tell you to step behind the tape. You either do not comply or step back, only to cross it again. Hence my lawful order was disobeyed.

Protesting is legal. If you and 500 people want to come to a location and protest I cannot stop you if you stay on the sidewalk and do not impede traffic. If you don’t listen, you did not obey my order. If you step onto private property I can tell you to move. If 5000 of you want to shut down the road, it’s best to allow you to do that for a while and divert traffic. Those that do not divert failed to follow a lawful order.”

Mr. Gates wasn’t arrested because he was “rude” but because he failed to heed the lawful order of a police officer. He acted like a criminal, and therefore was treated as such, and yes you CAN be arrested in your house for disorderly conduct and failing to obey an order.

Technorati Tags: , , ,